US re-indicts Indian diplomat on two criminal counts

The court had only found that Khobragade had immunity "during a limited period of time."


Afp March 14, 2014
US District Judge Shira Scheindlin had dismissed the indictment on Wednesday on the grounds that Khobragade was granted full diplomatic immunity on January 8. PHOTO: REUTERS/FILE

NEW YORK: A New York grand jury re-indicted an Indian diplomat on two counts of underpaying her housekeeper and falsifying a visa application on Friday, re-opening a case that triggered a bitter row with New Delhi.

The announcement from the Manhattan federal prosecutor came two days after a US judge threw out a previous case on the grounds that the consul enjoyed diplomatic immunity.

Devyani Khobragade was arrested on December 12 outside her children's New York school. She was detained and strip-searched, enraging the Indian government and some of the Indian public.

India claimed full diplomatic immunity on her behalf and it was on those grounds that she petitioned a US court on January 9 to drop the case.

US District Judge Shira Scheindlin dismissed the indictment on Wednesday on the grounds that Khobragade was granted full diplomatic immunity on January 8.

But in response a spokesperson for Preet Bharara - the US attorney for the southern district of New York - said they intended to re-charge the diplomat.

The court, he argued, had only found that Khobragade had immunity "during a limited period of time between January 8 and January 9, when the current indictment was returned by a grand injury.

"As the court indicted in this decision, and as Devyani Khobragade has conceded, there is currently no bar to a new indictment against her for her alleged criminal conduct, and we intend to proceed accordingly."

The indictment accuses Khobragade of presenting false information to obtain a visa for her housekeeper and for not wanting to pay the wages required under US law.

COMMENTS

Replying to X

Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.

For more information, please see our Comments FAQ